The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was:
- Delete - Image is not the uploader's to claim as their own and with no source identified fair-use requirements cannot be met. - Peripitus(Talk) 11:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite clearly, the uploader is not the copyright holder here, despite what he claims. BiruitorulTalk 04:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can identify the source of the image so that we can verify its copyright status, we can speedy it under I9 if it is determined that the shoe fits. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the uploader for his source. BiruitorulTalk 01:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per the article Ştefan Iordache, the subject of the photo is recently deceased. Therefore obtaining a free substitute may not be practical and inclusion under a fair use rationale may be legit. That said, the image tag should indicate the correct source of the image. Crypticfirefly (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
These photos were uploaded by me but now they have been uploaded in Commons and approved by OTRS. For that, I like to request all of them to be deleted - Jay (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The images (not all) have copied from Internet (For e.g. Mammootty & K. S. Chithra (Check Mammootty's history, that image was deleted by many times as found falsely claimed) and user falsely claimed to be self made. It is against our policy. Googlean (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-free book cover being used to show what the subject of the (biography) article looks like Calliopejen1 (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, I can't really see how this would be useful (low quality, I'm sure we have better phtoos of guitars) Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (what's going on here? it's labeled "devonshire mall" but it's clearly not a good representation of that) Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, we need more confirmation that this was actually released into the public domain by the copyright holder Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, we need more confirmation that this was actually released into the public domain by the copyright holder Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. From the discussion image appears to be non-free and there is no commentary in either article that the image is used in that supports the reasons given to keep the image. -Nv8200ptalk 00:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Image was restored. The image was removed from Heinrich Himmler article and made more relevant in the Gudrun Burwitz article. -Nv8200ptalk 15:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meaningfully add to the reader's understanding. In the Heinrich Himmler article, there are other images that show his appearance. In the Gudrun Burwitz article, it shows what she looked like as a child, however this isn't especially relevant. PhilKnight (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader - One may comprehend that Himmler would inspect his great developments, the concentration camps, but bringing his child along adds an extra facet to this personality, not to say the entire regime, examine the caring grins of the SS entournage. Himmlers facial expression is entirely different from the previous picture of a "concentration camp inspection" - this adds meaningful context to the Himmler article. Gudrun would be an unimportant person, had it not been for her continuing Nazi sympathies. This may (or may not) have been developed in her younger years, hence the picture is relevant context in the Gudrun article. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Image should qualify as blocked property and hence PD-US. -Nard 17:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The photo is by Friedrich Franz Bauer, Himmler's personal photographer (copy held by the BPK archive - image#30010944) and is clearly still in copyright - not PD-US (unless someone has a link as to why it might be ? ) - There is no discussion of the image in either article and the image could be largely replaced by text "Himmler took his young daughter Gudrun on concentration camp tours" - Peripitus(Talk) 11:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have so many images of Nazi leaders visiting this or that or inspecting this or that. I think this image contributes to us realising that they may have been corrupt and evil but they were still human. Welkinridge (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: nomination withdrawn. -Nv8200ptalk 21:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFCC#8. The image does not significantly increase the readers' understanding of the topic. The image and caption tie to nothing in the article that makes the presence of the non-free image important. Nv8200ptalk 19:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Caption has been improved to strengthen tie between image and text. Image shows "Pre-Stepfordized" wives in casual clothes, no makeup, unfussy hairstyles, and also close relationship of women. In contrast with the other two images on the pages, which show the highly made up and domestic women of town who eschew personal relationships, this is a significant image in the film. The image also illustrates Director Forbes' use of a "thriller in daylight" theme, as the women in the scene are talking about escaping the town, yet it looks like an idyllic stroll. -Cbradshaw (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Helps the reader achieve a fuller and deeper appreciation of the visual contrast set up between the "normal" Joanna and Bobbie from the start of the film, compared to the eerily immaculate Stepford wives (and the final Joanna bot), the contrast which is central to the film. Being able to see the actual visuals in all their detail helps the reader achieve a fuller and deeper appreciation of this visual contrast than a bald outline verbal description by itself would convey. The image therefore does significantly help the understanding the reader gets of the film. Jheald (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note also: previously, the caption did not lead the reader so explicitly to stop and think on this contrast. Now the caption has been rewritten, I suspect the nominator might re-consider his nomination. Jheald (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was:
- Delete - going out on a limb here but Alexander Prokopenko is a professional press photographer who seems to have variously worked for AFP and Reuters. The image appears to NOT belong to the linked website but is a simple copyright violation that we are hosting - Peripitus(Talk) 11:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image was deleted from commons ten days ago as "probable copyvio", the discussion can be found hereBanRay 20:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rationale for deletion on commons, just like the current deletionist fetish trend that gripped the once rational media storage space is downright rediculous. The image is taken from the official website of the political party which is named after the politician who is depicted on that image. If the website allows it to be used, then it can be used, period. Who cares about if someone puts a watermark on the image? --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 01:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm yet to see any evidence whatsoever that the website actually owns the image. According to the watermark, the copyright belongs to "Alexander Prokopenko" from "Alprok" (presumably the company he works for). BanRay 10:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Usage of pictures on the Commons is much more strict than that on Wikipedia. The footnote on the original source website said With the use of information in print or electronic, the hyperlink to "All-Ukrainian Union Fatherland" is obligatory. (an English translation). They allowed the use of the photo as long as it was stated where it came from, tying in with using the {{attribution}} template. The original source page is gone, but I'll try to find it on the updated website now. —dima/talk/ 21:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the usage is allowed with attribution.--Avala (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I changed the tag to {{Non-free album cover}}. It should now be okay under fair use. --Eastmain (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both the articles on the band and the album have been deleted for lack of notability over the last couple of days, so this image should go away as well. Crypticfirefly (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
